Skip to main content
Top
Published in: World Journal of Urology 4/2017

01-04-2017 | Original Article

Can robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP) be performed very soon after biopsy?

Authors: Jung Ki Jo, Jong Jin Oh, Sangchul Lee, Seong Jin Jeong, Sung Kyu Hong, Seok-Soo Byun, Sang Eun Lee

Published in: World Journal of Urology | Issue 4/2017

Login to get access

Abstract

Purpose

To identify the perioperative and oncological impact of different intervals between biopsy and robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP) for localized prostate cancer.

Methods

All consecutive patients with localized prostate cancer who underwent RALP with primary curative intent in January 2008–July 2014 in a large tertiary hospital were enrolled in this retrospective cohort study. The patients were divided into groups according to whether the biopsy–RALP interval was ≤2, ≤4, ≤6, or >6 weeks. Estimated blood loss and operating room time were surrogates for surgical difficulty. Surgical margin status and continence at the 1 year were surrogates for surgical efficacy. Biochemical recurrence (BCR) was defined as two consecutive postoperative prostate serum antigen values of ≥0.2 ng/ml.

Results

Of the 1446 enrolled patients, the biopsy–RALP interval was ≤2, ≤4, ≤6, and >6 weeks in 145 (10 %), 728 (50.3 %), 1124 (77.7 %), and 322 (22.3 %) patients, respectively. The >6 week group had a significantly longer mean operation time than the ≤2, ≤4, and ≤6 week groups. The groups did not differ significantly in terms of estimated blood loss or surgical margin status. Kaplan–Meier analysis showed that interval did not significantly affect postoperative BCR-free survival. Multivariable Cox proportional hazards model analysis showed that interval duration was not an independent predictor of BCR (≤2 vs. >2 weeks, HR = 0.859, p = 0.474; ≤4 vs. >4 weeks, HR = 1.029, p = 0.842; ≤6 vs. >6 weeks, HR = 0.84, p = 0.368).

Conclusion

Performing RALP within 2, 4, or 6 weeks of biopsy does not appear to adversely influence surgical difficulty or efficacy or oncological outcomes.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Hu JC, Gu X, Lipsitz SR, Barry MJ, D’Amico AV, Weinberg AC, Keating NL (2009) Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive vs open radical prostatectomy. JAMA 302:1557–1564CrossRefPubMed Hu JC, Gu X, Lipsitz SR, Barry MJ, D’Amico AV, Weinberg AC, Keating NL (2009) Comparative effectiveness of minimally invasive vs open radical prostatectomy. JAMA 302:1557–1564CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Trinh QD, Sammon J, Sun M, Ravi P, Ghani KR, Bianchi M, Jeong W, Shariat SF, Hansen J, Schmitges J, Jeldres C, Rogers CG, Peabody JO, Montorsi F, Menon M, Karakiewicz PI (2012) Perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy compared with open radical prostatectomy: results from the nationwide inpatient sample. Eur Urol 61:679–685CrossRefPubMed Trinh QD, Sammon J, Sun M, Ravi P, Ghani KR, Bianchi M, Jeong W, Shariat SF, Hansen J, Schmitges J, Jeldres C, Rogers CG, Peabody JO, Montorsi F, Menon M, Karakiewicz PI (2012) Perioperative outcomes of robot-assisted radical prostatectomy compared with open radical prostatectomy: results from the nationwide inpatient sample. Eur Urol 61:679–685CrossRefPubMed
3.
go back to reference Montorsi F, Wilson TG, Rosen RC et al (2012) Pasadena Consensus Panel. Best practices in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: recommendations of the Pasadena Consensus Panel. Eur Urol 62:368–381CrossRefPubMed Montorsi F, Wilson TG, Rosen RC et al (2012) Pasadena Consensus Panel. Best practices in robot-assisted radical prostatectomy: recommendations of the Pasadena Consensus Panel. Eur Urol 62:368–381CrossRefPubMed
4.
go back to reference Lim SK, Kim KH, Shin TY, Rha KH (2013) Current status of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: how does it compare with other surgical approaches? Int J Urol 20:271–284CrossRefPubMed Lim SK, Kim KH, Shin TY, Rha KH (2013) Current status of robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy: how does it compare with other surgical approaches? Int J Urol 20:271–284CrossRefPubMed
5.
go back to reference Sokoloff MH, Brendler CB (2001) Indications and contraindications for nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy. Urol Clin North Am 28:535–543CrossRefPubMed Sokoloff MH, Brendler CB (2001) Indications and contraindications for nerve-sparing radical prostatectomy. Urol Clin North Am 28:535–543CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Walsh PC (2002) Radical prostatectomy. In: Walsh PC, Retik AB, Darracott Vaughan E Jr, Wein AJ (eds) Campbell’s Urology, vol 8. WB Saunders, Philadelphia, pp 3107–3129 Walsh PC (2002) Radical prostatectomy. In: Walsh PC, Retik AB, Darracott Vaughan E Jr, Wein AJ (eds) Campbell’s Urology, vol 8. WB Saunders, Philadelphia, pp 3107–3129
7.
go back to reference White S, Hricak H, Forstner R et al (1995) Prostate cancer: effect of post biopsy hemorrhage on interpretation of MR images. Radiology 195:385–390CrossRefPubMed White S, Hricak H, Forstner R et al (1995) Prostate cancer: effect of post biopsy hemorrhage on interpretation of MR images. Radiology 195:385–390CrossRefPubMed
8.
go back to reference Ikonen S, Kivisaari L, Vehmas T et al (2001) Optimal timing of post-biopsy MR imaging of the prostate. Acta Radiol 42:70–73CrossRefPubMed Ikonen S, Kivisaari L, Vehmas T et al (2001) Optimal timing of post-biopsy MR imaging of the prostate. Acta Radiol 42:70–73CrossRefPubMed
9.
go back to reference Kaji Y, Kurhanewicz J, Hricak H et al (1998) Localizing prostate cancer in the presence of post biopsy changes on MR images: role of proton MR spectroscopic imaging. Radiology 206:785–790CrossRefPubMed Kaji Y, Kurhanewicz J, Hricak H et al (1998) Localizing prostate cancer in the presence of post biopsy changes on MR images: role of proton MR spectroscopic imaging. Radiology 206:785–790CrossRefPubMed
10.
go back to reference Eggener SE, Yossepowitch O, Serio AM, Vickers AJ, Scardino PT, Eastham JA (2007) Radical prostatectomy shortly after prostate biopsy does not affect operative difficulty efficacy. Urology 69:1128–1133CrossRefPubMed Eggener SE, Yossepowitch O, Serio AM, Vickers AJ, Scardino PT, Eastham JA (2007) Radical prostatectomy shortly after prostate biopsy does not affect operative difficulty efficacy. Urology 69:1128–1133CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Abdollah F, Karnes RJ, Suardi N et al (2014) Predicting survival of patients with node-positive prostate cancer following multimodal treatment. Eur Urol 65:554–562CrossRefPubMed Abdollah F, Karnes RJ, Suardi N et al (2014) Predicting survival of patients with node-positive prostate cancer following multimodal treatment. Eur Urol 65:554–562CrossRefPubMed
14.
go back to reference Pettus JA, Masterson T, Sokol A et al (2009) Prostate size is associated with surgical difficulty but not functional outcome at 1 year after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 182:949–955CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Pettus JA, Masterson T, Sokol A et al (2009) Prostate size is associated with surgical difficulty but not functional outcome at 1 year after radical prostatectomy. J Urol 182:949–955CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
15.
go back to reference Walsh PC, Partin AW (2007) Anatomic radical retropubic prostatectomy. In: Wein AJ, Kavoussi LR, Novick AC, Partin AW, Peters CA (eds) Campbell-Walsh urology, 9th edn. WB Saunders, Philadelphia, pp 2959–2978 Walsh PC, Partin AW (2007) Anatomic radical retropubic prostatectomy. In: Wein AJ, Kavoussi LR, Novick AC, Partin AW, Peters CA (eds) Campbell-Walsh urology, 9th edn. WB Saunders, Philadelphia, pp 2959–2978
16.
go back to reference Park KK, Lee SH, Lim BJ, Kim JH, Chung BH (2010) The effects of the period between biopsy and diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging on cancer staging in localized prostate cancer. BJU Int (forthcoming) Park KK, Lee SH, Lim BJ, Kim JH, Chung BH (2010) The effects of the period between biopsy and diffusion-weighted magnetic resonance imaging on cancer staging in localized prostate cancer. BJU Int (forthcoming)
17.
go back to reference Lee DK, Allareddy V, O’Donnell MA, Williams RD, Konety BR (2006) Does the interval between prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy affect the immediate postoperative outcome? BJU Int 97:48–50CrossRefPubMed Lee DK, Allareddy V, O’Donnell MA, Williams RD, Konety BR (2006) Does the interval between prostate biopsy and radical prostatectomy affect the immediate postoperative outcome? BJU Int 97:48–50CrossRefPubMed
19.
go back to reference Boorjian SA, Bianco FJ Jr, Scardino PT et al (2005) Does the time from biopsy to surgery affect biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy? BJU Int 96:773–776CrossRefPubMed Boorjian SA, Bianco FJ Jr, Scardino PT et al (2005) Does the time from biopsy to surgery affect biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy? BJU Int 96:773–776CrossRefPubMed
20.
go back to reference Khan MA, Mangold LA, Epstein JI et al (2004) Impact of surgical delay on long-term cancer control for clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 172(5 Pt 1):1835–1839CrossRefPubMed Khan MA, Mangold LA, Epstein JI et al (2004) Impact of surgical delay on long-term cancer control for clinically localized prostate cancer. J Urol 172(5 Pt 1):1835–1839CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference Nam RK, Jewett MA, Krahn MD et al (2003) Delay in surgical therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer and biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Can J Urol 10:1891–1898PubMed Nam RK, Jewett MA, Krahn MD et al (2003) Delay in surgical therapy for clinically localized prostate cancer and biochemical recurrence after radical prostatectomy. Can J Urol 10:1891–1898PubMed
Metadata
Title
Can robot-assisted laparoscopic radical prostatectomy (RALP) be performed very soon after biopsy?
Authors
Jung Ki Jo
Jong Jin Oh
Sangchul Lee
Seong Jin Jeong
Sung Kyu Hong
Seok-Soo Byun
Sang Eun Lee
Publication date
01-04-2017
Publisher
Springer Berlin Heidelberg
Published in
World Journal of Urology / Issue 4/2017
Print ISSN: 0724-4983
Electronic ISSN: 1433-8726
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00345-016-1893-4

Other articles of this Issue 4/2017

World Journal of Urology 4/2017 Go to the issue